Soldato
It largely depends on both the size of your screen and your viewing distance. The bigger the TV, the more pronounced the difference presuming you don't sit further back.
Embracing blu-ray
- Thread starter Pawnless Endgame
- Start date
you will be waiting a VERY long time before even majority of UK have anything fast enough to download that size of file ina reasonable time
Im in Central London and the cabling around here is atrocious - Im limited to under 3mb 95% of the time (so I wont ever bother downloading for that long - and I doubt many would)
When it takes a few minutes to download that size then it will be workable - otherwise you are in dreamland imo
Ive got over 400 BR's (and watched /ready to sell/already sold) at least 100 more, so Ive been convinced for a few years about how long BR will be around for (and as 2010 sales of BR software has doubled 2009 sales, I think thats reasonable)
1 album = 2/300Mb or something like that - a bluray is typically 100 times that size (20/30GB) - now imagine how long it will take you to download
Yes I have a decent 50" Pioneer plasma and all the speakers etc etc - and I typically watch the films I keep multiple times (majority of my collection I have probably watched 3 times) and I totally understand a lot of people arent bothered by the increase in sound /picture quality - but a lot of it is out of pure ignorance, and looking at shop demos (which are never very good to start with) and not wanting to know
My eyesight isnt perfect by any means - but even I can see the improvements on screen between dvd and BR , so I think a lot of people would if they tried
Now that Sky has gone 3d - a lot of larger tv's are being sold on the back of this, and people will start noticing how badly DVD's are being pressed now (personally think a lot of discs are purposefully made worse so the transfer to BR by the public is increased). I do believe quality of DVD pressing in general has gone down from when it first came out
Would be interesting to know what BR's you have - it does depend heavily on each release , as per DVD some releases are a great advert for the disc, other releases are terrible however
If you havent already I would try and catch Planet Earth (if you like that kind of thing) or other BBC wildlife / nature programs as they are absolutely stunning on BR
This is heavily dependant on the tv you have though - imo its very hard/practically impossible to tell much difference with a tv with a smaller than 42" screen , but 50" and larger make it very easy to tell
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Hmmmmm. Do i hate an organisation pushing an anti-consumerist product? Yup, i do.
Blu(e)Ray is here to stay. It is not a fad, it is not fleeting, it is the industry choice of physical distribution vessel. It is the format we will have to buy our movies on for the next decade and more.
The only viable alternative i can think of is distribution on USB memory sticks. Cool but then what is the cost of a reasonably sized usb stick these days? Discs are cheap to produce, as far as i know the same is true of Blu(e)Ray discs. Or perhaps sci fi fantasy, storing data in crystals
The people group who came up with the idea of selling the same product multiple times in different formats is, quite frankly, a genius. The product is the film, buying into a different distribution medium is not buying a different product, its exactly the same product. Here is a novel idea: Why can't i purchase a license, from a movie studio, that says I own a 'right' to a particular film. Then, when an 'improved' format comes out, i can get a copy of said film on what ever format i wish for a reduced price.
Do you really, really think AnyDVD is legal? Really?
Last edited:
1/2 embraced it. But I am not building up a blu-ray collection. Mainly use lovefilm, or virgin on demand, occasionaly blinkbox.
I don't see the point in building up a blu-ray collection. within the next two years it will be outdated and online content will be the new thing, just like mp3s replaced cds. When that happens I'll start building a collection that is easily integrated into media pcs/tvs doesn't take up an entire wall like my old dvd collection.
I don't see the point in building up a blu-ray collection. within the next two years it will be outdated and online content will be the new thing, just like mp3s replaced cds. When that happens I'll start building a collection that is easily integrated into media pcs/tvs doesn't take up an entire wall like my old dvd collection.
Indeed - my only requirement to buy a BluRay player would be to play my home videos (AVCHD output).
If I want to watch a film in HD, I use the Virgin FilmFlex (or whatever it's called) service. Cheaper and easier. I'll only buy the films I love on whatever media is easiest for me to use.
Hmmmmm. Do i hate an organisation pushing an anti-consumerist product? Yup, i do.
Blu(e)Ray is here to stay. It is not a fad, it is not fleeting, it is the industry choice of physical distribution vessel. It is the format we will have to buy our movies on for the next decade and more.
The only viable alternative i can think of is distribution on USB memory sticks. Cool but then what is the cost of a reasonably sized usb stick these days? Discs are cheap to produce, as far as i know the same is true of Blu(e)Ray discs. Or perhaps sci fi fantasy, storing data in crystals
The people group who came up with the idea of selling the same product multiple times in different formats is, quite frankly, a genius. The product is the film, buying into a different distribution medium is not buying a different product, its exactly the same product. Here is a novel idea: Why can't i purchase a license, from a movie studio, that says I own a 'right' to a particular film. Then, when an 'improved' format comes out, i can get a copy of said film on what ever format i wish for a reduced price.
Quite frankly, it's ridiculous to expect a film to only ever come out on one format.
That film you bought on VHS which needed a new transfer for DVD and then another one for Blu-Ray should all have been paid for with you buying your VHS copy should it?
I'm not saying movie studios don't make far too much money but expecting to be given the right to buy a film on any format with a one off payment is a bit silly.
Unless you pay a ridiculous amount of money for that license then what incentive does it give them to do new versions and invest in new technologies? You'd be happy to be stuck with that VHS quality, nicam stereo quality transfer would you?
Caporegime
You live in the UK? correct?
Then that sentence is complete wrong.
Fair use is an AMERICAN term.
There is no fair use policy in the UK. It means you can't copy anything, period. No buts, no if, no "but I own that on a legit DVD judge".
Also, recording TV is legal, for 30 days.
Over 30 days you are breaking the law.
Of course, all the above are what the law says, whether you get caught or not is anothe rmatter. Whether you get caught AND get prosecuted or not is also another matter.
What is NOT up to debate is that there is no fair use in the UK. There has been proposals to make changes that will make it similar to the US, but those changes has not been implemented, nor has it passed both houses so right now the law is if you copy it, you break the copyright law.
![[J.D.C]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/3.png){kind=avatar}
Literally have never bought a Blu-Ray. Probably wouldn't mind being given one as a present as I do have a PS3 to watch my DVD's with etc so wouldn't be a problem.
Blu-Ray for me still has a year or two to go before people start universally using it.
Blu-Ray for me still has a year or two to go before people start universally using it.
Caporegime
[J.D.C];18015110 said:
Do you need to wait until it is universially using it before you buy one?
If not then why the wait?
Only in teh same sense as cds for music. Digital downloads and online streaming are the way forward and will be a year or two before it starts picking up popularity. Wont take long for blu-ray to be seen the same as cds.
That's not what I said.
Even if film downloads do take off it's unlikely they'll be at the same quality level as bluray so we'll be left with an inferior product just as has been the case with CD's and MP3's.
Associate
My sentiments exactly.
I was having an argument with a colleague earlier this week that blu-rays were superior in quality to the dodgy 1.5gb so-called high def pirates he gets off rapidshare, he wasn't having any of it and couldn't seem to understand that compression = lower quality.
I can't see digital downloads as the format of choice for me until much higher-speed net access is available cheaply, so that we can have uncompressed full hd streams/downloads.
Last edited:
Soldato
[J.D.C];18015110 said:
It's used enough for prices to have gone right down. They were like £25 or something when they came out. Can get them for under a tenner now, £11 is a pretty common price. I don't shop in HMV much but the Blu Ray section has steadily increased in size in my local one and will probably keep getting bigger.
Caporegime
[J.D.C];18015762 said:
Then why are you not embracing it?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
I wonder how many people here a ripped a dvd in the past, to transfer to their media center for streaming etc?
It's such a meaningless law which is never enforced, it's barely worth even mentioning. I'm sure there has never been a case of someone getting prosecuted for ripping a dvd in their home to transfer to other mediums.
Blu-ray was always the superior format and I'm glad it won. Please stop worrying about how unopen the format is and leave it to the professionals to provide you with a solution alas (AnyDVD).
For AV enthusiasts, Blu-ray is the medium of choice and nothing comes close to it for picture / audio quality. Microsoft / iTunes / PSN can keep there crappy HD re-encodes.
It hasn't stoped the vast majority for mp3 and i see no reason to think film will be any different. For 99% of people/equipment the differencce is not noticable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,245
This is heavily dependant on the tv you have though - imo its very hard/practically impossible to tell much difference with a tv with a smaller than 42" screen , but 50" and larger make it very easy to tell
I have a 42" although i haven't seen a blu ray yet the difference between sky hd channels and sd is quite impressive. I assume blu ray will be even better than 1080i. What would you say is the smallest screen to get the blu ray benefits?
Associate
It's not the size of the screen, it's the resolution and how far away you sit compared to the size of the pixels. In the SD days it used to be 3x the diagonal size of the screen for optimum viewing distance (as a general rule). With HD and the increase in pixel density it's now 2x, which is why TVs are getting bigger and 42" are common now.
So for a 42" screen you need to be, ideally (approximately), 84" aka 7 feet away from it. Much closer and you'll see the pixels and jaggedness, much further and you'll lose detail resolution.
Room size/layout determines screen size.